ი༥ြᛖᠮྞ, ᮮ51Ჹ, 2015Ⴐ 11ᦐ Agricultural Science &
Technology Research, Vol. 51
ઊ߸ ࡚ࣴ ഡ ౸ބ౸ ࣥ੮ଔز ґࠋ
७ਕ§ࠆ൭ଔ§Ԥ൭ી§ઌ§৩
ाفഠӯ ਙഠӘ
Development for Monitoring Indicators of Tomato Growth by Image Analysis
Young Ji Sim, Hyo Jin Park, Hyo Jung Kim, Eun In Jo and Won Mo Yang*
Dept. of Horticulture, Sunchon Nat'l Univ., Sunchon Chonnam 540-950, Korea
*Corresponding author: [email protected]
ABSTRACT
A yield and quality of tomato plants depends on the balance of growth and development.
It is need the indicators for automatic image monitoring of tomato growth. This research was conducted to investigate a effective indicators for monitoring of tomato growth. The temperature are controlled 16G and 18, the drain quantity of nutrient solution 9700ml(week/8nozzle) and 14000ml(week/8nozzle). The leaf width and length at 18G are bigger than at 16. The brightness L and redness are low at 18Gthan at 16, but yellowness b was high at 18. The difference of growth are bigger at 18G than 16. The color difference of leaflet E, L, a are higher in 2-3 cluster than 1, 4, 5 cluster, but color b is higher in nearest leaflet to stem apex. At the drain quantity of nutrient solution, 9700ml(week/8nozzle), a leaf width and length are small than at 14000ml(week/8nozzle), but is high the angle of leaflet. The leaf color did not differ significantly by the drain quantity of nutrient solution. The stem diameter was more affected by temperature, but the stem length was affected by the temperature and the quantity of nutrient solution supply. A fruit width and length were more affected by low temperature(16) than high temperature(18), and 9700ml(week/8nozzle) than 14000ml(week/8nozzle). The number of fruit were highest at 16G and 14000ml(week/8nozzle). In addition to leaf width, length, stem diameter and stem length, the angle and the color of leaflet are useful for indicators for automatic image monitoring of tomato growth, especially at the leaflet of 2-4 cluster below stem apex.
Additional key words: growth factor, growth balance, growth diagnosis, image analysis for tomato growth
ছચ
२ߜ ࣥஔીࡂݴ ઊੋഡ ࣥ੮ૂৰѿ د৩ടҲ
१٩ٻӋ ઔد. ੌݼ֢܅ਁࣳ٩ ৹Ә ICTઅ ੴ ࡃഥ ౿ഡ ࣒ࣥऀ ലࣛ Ӵѿ ൜فٻӋ ઔد.
౸ބ౸ ઊ߸ ࡚ࣴ ౿ഡ ࣥ੮ીࡂ إౡރ ࠃ
ૂৰ Ӵ ਊ१ ࠋشټ ICT࣒৹ ৹ਁ હੋട Ӌઘ ടؘ १٩ઊد(Park and Cho, 2015, Kim et al, 1999, Kim and Kim, 2013) ੮ഠ࡚ৡਁؘࣳ
ઘٳ൛ټ ઊ߸ ࡚ࣴ१फ़౯ െൌ ੭ઘ ࣷ ࠋਁ ൞ੋടӋ ઔ੶ २ߜ࠾ଔز ࡚ৡਁࣳ٩ ਕ
ࣛીࡂѿ ൞ੋٻӋ ઔد. ౸ބ౸ؘ ਕ৩ࣥણӘ ࣥ २ࣥણઊ ٳ१ਁ ଔരٻؘ २ߜܾࣳ ઊ ڂ ࣥણࣛ
અ ԑൌઊ ़ܞӘ ഀଖ ੌഡد. ౸ބ౸અ ࣥ੮
ౖࣛݴ ਕࣛઊ߸ܾ ઘٳ إౡރടԞ നؘࣳ
ઊ߸ ࡚ࣴਁ હഥഡ ࣥ੮ѿ ചടد. ઊ Ӵؘ ਢ٩ਭ ़࡚ ࠃ ৩࡚ ҥ شݼടਉ ౸ބ
౸ݴ થࠔടࣳ, ગ, Ԟ, գ, Әઍઅ ࣥ੮ਁ ਕ ઊ߸ ࣥ੮إౡރਁ હഥഡ ࣥ੮ݴ ٩ട Ԟ ടਉ ़രടਔد.
୍߹ࢫࢺ࣑
౸ބ౸ Ӗ१ഀ क़್ܾࣷڙ(࣏دߒ)ܾ
ܾൌ ੭ݼਢ५ਁࣳ થࠔࠒ२੶ܾ થࠔടਔد.
ಶ 2014ך 9ਖ਼ 15ઍ, ી२ 10ਖ਼ 29ઍઊৼӋ, થࠔҥ ਢ٩ 2़(16/18) (ઊട T16/T18 ઊ܅ ത), ़࡚ 2़(ࠔܞ 9,700ml/14,000ml (week/8 nozzle))(ઊട WD9/WD14܅ ത), ৩࡚ 2
़(ߗӖԚ/ӖԚ)੶ܾ ടਔد. ࣥ੮ؘ࣏ 2015ך
1ਖ਼ 16ઍ, 23ઍ, 30ઍ, 2ਖ਼ 6ઍ, 3ਖ਼ 4ઍ, 11ઍ, 18ઍਁ ५१ടਔӋ, ࣏ധ ણ, ೪, घ
ણ, घ೪, घҀ٩, ࣞ, ૻ, ӄણ(൛ࠒӘ ൛ ࠒ࣏ઊઅ Ԣઊ), ӄӄ(൛ࠒӘ ൛ࠒઅ ૻҁބڤઅ
ૻࡘ ଓӄ), ӄૻ(൛ࠒӘ ൛ࠒ࣏ઊઅ Ԟ), ґ൛
൛ࠒૻ. Әણ, Әӄ, Әࣞ(൛ࠒ࠺ ѿણ ి ҫ 1ґ), Әૻ(൛ࠒ࠺ Ә़ ஔ) ڢ 15ധઊৼد. ൛ࠒ
Ԟࡘਁࣳ ીزࡘܾ ࠤݴ ࡘਉടٻ ࣥણઽৈܑ
1-5൛ࠒ فࣛ੶ܾ ࣥ੮࣏ݴ ५१ടਔد. ࣷ
ز घઅ Ҁ٩ؘ ޔ़ࣷࣛਁ Ҁ٩Ԟݴ ف ৰ ӆௐടਔد.
էրࢫճఝ
೪ T16ݼਁࣳ 35.00cm T18ݼਁࣳ
38.02cmਔӋ, ણ T16 37.70cm, T18 38.79cm
ܾ ӆௐٻৰ ਢ٩ਁࣳ ३ણઊ ੶֢, ࣷ
ز घણӘ घ೪ T16Ә T18࣏ઊਁ ୱઊѿ
৺ৼد(Fig. 1, 2).
Fig. 1. Leaf width and length compared to the T16 and T18.
Fig. 2. Leaflet width and length compared to the T16 and T18.
ࣷز 1, 2, 3घઅ Ҁ٩ؘ T16ݼਁࣳ Ҁ Ҁ 36.73, 41.32, 38.70°, T18ݼਁࣳ 31.55, 33.59, 35.17°ܾ ֯ ਢ٩ਁࣳ થࠔټ ౸ބ౸ਁࣳ
घҀ٩ѿ د(Fig. 3). ઊؘ ਢ٩અ ୱઊਁ گ ݳ ஔֳ ف࣏Әીઅ ୱઊݴ ࠉਕടؘ ҫ੶ܾࣳ, घ
Ҁ٩ؘ ౸ބ౸ થࠔӘીਁࣳ ਢ५ֳ ਢ٩અ હ
ഥऀ ಹ࠺ടؘ ട֢અ ѿ ٽ ़ ઔ੶, ࣥ ஔીࡂݴ ൞ੋഡ ൝ӄૂৰ ্Ӌݼ ґࠋघܾ
ੋഢ ़ ઔ ҫ੶ܾ ಹزٻৼد. ࣷز 1, 2, 3घઅ ࣞ E, L, a, b ૻਁࣳ L(٩, ࠕࣞ٩), a (હࣞ٩), b(ൠࣞ٩)અ ୱઊѿ ۣܷടਔد. T18
ݼਁࣳ ٩(ࠕࣞ٩)ਭ હࣞ٩ѿ ֯ৈ੶ ࠉف
ܾ ൠࣞ٩ؘ ৈد(Fig. 4). ࣷز घઅ ࣞ
ਊ१ ਢ५ ֳ ਢ٩અ હીऀ ಹزടؘ ܾ
൞ੋട ҫ੶ܾ ࣥҀٻৼد.
Fig. 3. Angle of leaflet compared to the T16 and T18.
Fig. 4. Leaf-color of leaflet E, L, a, b compared to the T16 and T18.
ਢ٩અ ୱઊਁ گݳ ३ણઅ ୱઊѿ ൛ࠒҁਁ
ୱઊѿ ઔؘ ࡻӯടਔد(Fig. 5, 6). ൛ࠒҁઅ ણ, ೪અ ୱઊؘ ણࡂدؘ ೪ਁࣳ ً ఽҲ
֢ౌ֭د. ࣷز घҀ٩٩ ൛ࠒ࠺ ୱઊѿ ۣܷ
ടਔ੶ T16ݼਁࣳ T18ݼࡂد ൛ࠒҁ ୱઊ ѿ ఽҲ ֢ౌ֭د.
Fig. 5. Leaf Width and Length compared to Flower Cluster from 1 to 5.
Fig. 6. Angle of leaflet compared to Flower Cluster from 1 to 5.
فஔહ੶ܾ ગઅ ࣞୱ E, L, aؘ 2, 3൛ࠒઅ ગ
ਁࣳ 1, 4, 5൛ࠒઅ ગਁ ࡻന ੶֢, bؘ ીزࡘ
ગ੶ܾ ़҃ܿ Ҳ ֢ౌ֢ ࣛਁࣳ ൠࣞ ً
۾ؘ ҫ੶ܾ ӆௐٻৼد(Fig. 7).
़࡚ӖԚܞઅ ୱઊؘ ౸ބ౸અ ࣥ♹ࣛਁ ి ਕ ല ߸د(Hwang et al, 2010, Kang et al, 2007, Kim and Kim, 2015, Kim et al, 2000).
WD14ݼѿ WD9ݼਁ ࡻന ೪, ણઊ د (Fig. 8). ࠔܞઊ હ ڹ घҀ٩ѿ ੶֢
(Fig. 9), ࠔܞઅ ୱઊਁ گݳ અ ࣞ࠹൛ؘ હ ৼد(Fig. 10). ӄӄ ਢ٩ࡂlدؘ ৩ӖԚܞઅ
ਕല ఽҲ ࠊ੶, ӄણ ਢ٩ਭ ৩ӖԚܞ અ ਕല ٳ१ਁ ࠊ੶֢ ৩ӖԚܞࡂدؘ ਢ ٩અ ਕലઊ د(Fig. 11). ़࡚फ़ಠܩफ़ؘ Ә५
ֳઅ ف࣏ઙੋਁ ਕല د(Lipton, 1970). Әણ Ә Әӄ ৩અ ࠔܞઊ હ ڹѿ އ ڹࡂ د ੶, ਢ٩ؘ ֯ ڹѿ ڹࡂد ిӄല ઊৼد. ൛ࠒ࠺ Ә़ؘ T16WD14ݼਁࣳ د
Fig. 7. Leaf-color of leaflet E, L, a, b compared to Flower Cluster from 1 to 5.
Fig. 8. Leaf width and length compared to the WD9 and WD14.
Fig. 9. Angle of leaflet compared to the WD9 and WD14.
Fig. 10. Leaf-color of leaflet E, L, a, b compared to the WD9 and WD14.
Fig. 11. Stem diameter and length compared to the T16, T18, WD9 and WD14.
Fig. 12. Fruit width, length and number compared to T16, T18, WD9 and WD14.
(Fig. 12). ઊڝ ࣏ധ ૻਁࣳ ણ, ೪, ӄણ, ӄӄ ਼ਁ٩ ࣷزघҀ٩ਭ घࣞୱ L, a, b҈
ઊ߸ ࣥ੮ીࡂ إౡރ ധ੶ܾࣳ ੭ੋട Ҳ ઊੋٽ ़ ઔ ҫ੶ܾ ಹزٻৼ੶, ಡඥ ી زࡘ ৈܑ 2-4൛ࠒ ࣏ઊઅ Ә Ԟઅ ઊ߸ ന
ࣴઊ ൭ੰહઍ ҫ੶ܾ ࣥҀٻৼد.
ొߧ
ઊ Ӵؘ ਢ٩ਭ ़࡚ ࠃ ৩࡚ ҥ شݼട ਉ ౸ބ౸ݴ થࠔടࣳ, ગ, Ԟ, գ, Әઍઅ ࣥ
੶ܾঅ ઊ߸ ࣥ੮إౡރਁ હഥഡ ࣥ੮ݴ
٩ടԞ ടਉ ़രടਔد. ೪, ણ 16ࡂ د 18ਁࣳ ௵੶֢ ࣷز घણӘ घ೪
ୱઊѿ ৺ৼد. ࣷز 1, 2, 3घઅ Ҁ٩ؘ 1 6ਁࣳ થࠔټ ౸ބ౸ਁࣳ د. ࣷز 1, 2, 3 घઅ ࣞ ૻਁࣳ L(٩, ࠕࣞ٩), a(હࣞ٩), b (ൠࣞ٩)અ ୱઊѿ ۣܷടਔد. 18ਁࣳ ٩ਭ
હࣞ٩ѿ ֯ৈ੶ ࠉفܾ ൠࣞ٩ؘ ৈد.
ણࡂدؘ ೪ਁࣳ ൛ࠒҁઅ ୱઊѿ ً د.
ࣷز घҀ٩٩ ൛ࠒ࠺ ୱઊѿ ۣܷടਔ੶ 1 8ਁࣳ 16ਁ ࡻന ൛ࠒҁ ୱઊѿ د. ગઅ
ࣞୱ E, L, aؘ 2, 3൛ࠒઅ ગਁࣳ 1, 4, 5൛ࠒਁ
ࡻന੶֢, bؘીزࡘગ੶़ܾ҃ܿҲ֢ౌ
֢ ࣛਁࣳ ൠࣞ ً ۾ৼد. ৩અ ࠔܞઊ
હ ڹ ೪, ણઊ ઙ੶ घҀ٩ѿ ੶֢
ࠔܞઅ ୱઊਁ گݳ અ ࣞ࠹൛ؘ હৼد. ӄӄ
ਢ٩ࡂدؘ ৩ӖԚܞઅ ਕല ఽҲ ࠊ੶
, ӄણ ਢ٩ਭ ৩ӖԚܞઅ ਕല ٳ१ਁ ࠊ
੶֢ ৩ӖԚܞࡂدؘ ਢ٩અ ਕലઊ د. Ә ણӘ Әӄ ৩અ ࠔܞઊ હ ڹѿ އ ڹ ࡂد ੶, ਢ٩ѿ ֯ ڹ ి ӄലઊৼد. ൛ࠒ
࠺ Әઍ़ؘ ֯ ਢ٩ઊӋ Ԛܞઊ އ ڹ އ
د. ࣷزघҀ٩ਭ घࣞୱ L, a, b҈ ઊ
߸ ࣥ੮ીࡂ إౡރ ധ੶ܾࣳ ੭ੋടҲ ઊ
ੋٽ ़ ઔ ҫ੶ܾ ಹزٻৼ੶, ಡඥ ીزࡘ
ৈܑ 2-4൛ࠒ ࣏ઊઅ Ә Ԟઅ ઊ߸ നࣴઊ
൭ੰહઍ ҫ੶ܾ ࣥҀٻৼد.
ԧச૬ઘࣥણघ, ࣥણԑൌ, ࣥ੮ଔز, ઊ߸
ࣥஔીࡂ
ॷॷ
ࡅ ऀӘߜ தଔඝஓӴ࣏৹(ंࡘӘૂ: ౸ ބ౸અ 3D ઊ߸ ࣥ੮ٙઊౡ ࡚ࣴ ࠃ ી٩ ґ
ࣷ, Әૂࠤ: PJ010715022015)અ ਁ અന ઊ ݗৰଔ ҫઑ
ఞճࢂෝ
1. Eun Soo Park, Byoung-Kwan Cho. 2015.
Development of phenotyping Measurement technique for white radish plant leave in drought stress using hyperspectral imagery. Proceedings of theKSAM & KSBEC 2015 Spring Conference pp.91-92.
2. G, Y. Kim, K. H. Ryu, S. P. Chun. 1999.
Identification of crop growth stage by image processing for greenhouse automation. J. of Biosystems Engineering 24(1): 25-30.
3. Hwang Seungmi, Kwon Taekryun, Doh Eun-Soo, and Park Mehea. 2010. Growth and physiological adaptations of tomato plants(Lycopersicon escullentum Mill) in response to water scarcity in soil. J.ournal of Bio-Environment Control 19(4): 266-274.
4. Kyong-Ock Kim, Eung-Kon Kim. 2013.
Cycle-by-cycle plant growth automatic control
monitoring system using smart device. J. of The Korea Institute of Electronic Communication Sciences 8(5): 745-750.
5. Lipton, W.J . 1970. Effects of high humidity and solar radiation on temperature and color of tomato fruits. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 95: 680-684.
6. Nam Jun Kang, Myeong Whan Cho, and Young Hah Choi. 2007. Effects of deficit irrigation on the reduction of green shelter fruits in fresh tomato. Journal of Bio-Environment Control 16(3): 186-193.
7. Si-Hong Kim, Il-Sup Kim. 2015. The effects of day water stress on the growth and root morphology of tomato plug seedlings.
Proceedings of theKSAM & KSBEC 2015 Spring Conference pp.413-414.
8. Yeong-Bong Kim, Chul-Geun An, Young-Han Lee. 2000. Effect of soil moisture on quality and yeld in tomatoes. J. Kor. Soc. Hort. Sci.
41(2): 139-142.
